Gutherie v. Board of Trustees of GGRF

Opinion

FILED

SUPERIOR COURT

OF GUAM

2022 JtN 20 PM 2: 33

2 CLERKOF COURT

gyL

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6

TAKAKO B. GUTHRIE AND JOSEPH A.) SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. SP0094-20 a GUTHRIE ETAL, Petitioners/Plamtiffs, DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO ) DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INRfl’JCTIVE 10 V ) RELIEF 11 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM 12 RETIREMENT FUND, 13 Respondents/Defendants.

14 This matter came before the court upon the Government of Guam Retirement Fund 15 motion to dismiss Petitioners/Plaintiffs Takako B. Guthrie and Joseph A. Guthrie (hereinafter 16 17 the Guthries) Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. The Board contends that the

18 Guthries may not combine the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, styled as a 19 class action with theft Petition for Writ of Review of an administrative decision.

20 Procedural history

21

22 The Guthries filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling before the Board. The copy of the

23 Petition attached to the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Petition for 24 Peremptory Writ of Mandamus Class Action labeled as Exhibit 1 (hereinafter Guthrie

Memorandum) is undated and unsigned. The stated reason for the filing the Petition was to

“establish Petitioner Takako B. Guthrie’s rights to surviving spouse pension in the event Joseph 27

28 A. Guthfle pre-deceases her. (Guthrie Memorandum page 2 of Exhibit 1). The Board issued its

decision on April 24, 2020 finding that Takao Guthrie would not be entitled to receive a

2 surviving spouse annuity.( Guthrie Memorandum Exhibit 2) The decision of the Board was

3 based on specific facts relating to Joseph A. Guthrie’s work history and retirement as presented

to the Board.(Guthrie Memorandum Exhibit 3 , GGRF No DR20200l)

5 On July 10 2020 the Guthries filed a Preemptory Write of Mandate invoking the 6 appellate jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Guam to review the decision and order of the

a Board. At the same time, the Guthries plead in the alternative, a Complaint for Declaratory and

InjunctIve relief styled as a class action and invoking the Superior Court’s original jurisdiction

under the Declaratory Judgment Act 7 GCA 26801. Both the appeal and the Complaint center

on the same contention; that upon his death Mr. Guthrie’s Spouse Takako Guthrie is entitled to 12

surviving spouse benefits under 4 G.C.A. $134(a)(1)(A). The Guthries seek to certify a class

14 action on both the appeal and the complaint for declaratory relief. 15 The Board filed a motion to dismiss the Alternative Complaint for Declaratory and 16 Injunctive asserting that the Guthries could not pursue the appeal of the Boards decision while 17 simultaneously invoking the original jurisdiction of the court by filing a Complaint for 18 Declaratory Relief as a class action and joining parties that were not a part of the original

20 hearing before the Board. This court agrees with the position of The Board of Trustees of the 21 Government of Guam Retirement Fund that the Complaint for Declaratory Relief and 22 Injunction (which fall under the general jurisdiction of the Superior Court 7 GCA §4101)

23

24 cannot be joined with a writ of review which is an appeal from a ruling of an inferior tribunal.

25 The appeal is brought pursuant to Guam writ of review statute 7 G.C.A § 31202. The review

26 upon the writ cannot be extended further than to determine whether the inferior tribunal, board,

or officer has regularly pursued the authority of such tribunal, board or officer. 7 GCA §31108.

The court is limited determining whether the agency decision is in in accordance with the law, 1

2 supported by substantial evidence, affirming, reversing or remanding it for further proceedings

3 pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act 5 GCA 9240. The trial court is required to 4 , affirm the agency s findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence.

.

5 5 GCA § 9240. Decision: Review. Judicial review may be had of any agency 6 decision by any party affected adversely by it. If the agency decision is not in accordance with law or not supported by substantial evidence, the court shall order the agency to take action according to law or the evidence.

8 The decision of the Board is limited to the facts pertaining to the Guthrie claims because they 9

10 were the only parties to the action.

ii The conversion of Guthries’ case into a class action Complaint for Declaratory and 12 Injunctive Relief would require action on the part of the court outside the scope of the ADA 13 including permitting extensive discovery not contemplated by the ADA. Admimsfrattve review 14 differs with civil actions in that Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (a) (1) (E) (xx) provides that 15

16 writs are exempt from initial discovery requirements unless otherwise ordered by the court.

17 Guam Police Department Major Chargualafv Government of Guam Retirement fund, 2021 18 Guam 17[31.

19 By its plain language the code provides for judicial review of an adverse agency 20

decision issued to a named party. The Guthries’ claim was the only one heard in the 21 22 administrative proceedings; no other “person” was a named party to the case resulting in the,

23 decision from which the Guthries seek judicial review. Case law supports this interpretation of 24 Guam statutes. It is appropriate to allow a class action as part of an administrative appeal.

25 A Peremptory Writ of Mandate may also be de-nominated a writ of review. 7 GCA 26

27 31201. Guam’s writ of review statute 7 GCA § 31202 mirrors the California Code of Civil

28 Procedure §1085. Guam Fedn of Teachers ex ret. Rector v Perez, 2005 Guam 25 ¶ 23

28

n.4. “When Guam statutes are based on nearly identical California statues, California case law

2 is persuasive, absent any compelling reason to deviate from California’s interpretation.” Banes

v. superior Court, 2021 Guam 11 ¶11, Is/antI Eye C’enter Inc. v Lombard, 2020 Guam 32 ¶ 4 11. Since Guam’s mandamus statute is rooted in California Code of Civil Procedure § 10851 5

6 California case law construing the identical statute is persuasive, Holmes et at v Territorial

7 Land Use Commission, Department of Land Management et al, 1998 Guam 8 ¶ 6 (“[S]ince

Guam’s mandamus statutes were adopted from the California Civil Code [sic] California cases 9 applying the mandamus standard are persuasive authonty.”); Ueda v. Bank of Guam, 2005 10

Guam 23, ¶ 16 n. 7 (We find California case law to be authority in the interpretation of Title

12 21 GCA § 1254, as that section was derived from California Civil Code § 711”). 13 It is well settled under California law that the proper remedy for review of 14 administrative order is administrative mandamus and not declaratory relief. Hostetter v 15 Alderson 38 Cal.2d 499,500,241P.2d 230(1952) (an action for declaratory relief is not

17 appropriate for review of an administrative order but the complaint may be treated as a petition

18 for writ of.mandate) Guilbert v Regents of Univ. California, 93 Cal App 3d, 233, 244, 155Ca1. 19 Rptr. 523, 587 (1979). In Guilbert the plaintiff attempted to join a declaratory relief action with 20 an action for review of an administrative order in connection with disciplinary proceedings in 21

22 which he was suspended without pay. The court of appeals agreed with the trial court that

23 Guilbert had not cited any cases for the proposition that “declaratory relief may be pursued 24 where an administrative mandamus action provides and adequate remedy for resolving the

issues raised.” 93 Cal App 3d at 244, 155 Cal Rptr. at 588. As the Respondents point out in

their brief, the preceding rule applies to an action seeking injunctive relief as well. The

Petitioners must exhaust their administrative remedies before they can pursue further action in 1

2 the form of a civil suit.

3 CONCLUSION

The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief cannot be joined with the 5 proceedings for administrative review of the Boards decision. The Board’s motion to dismiss is 6 granted without prejudice.

It is so ordered January 20, 2022

‘MITATRICK Judge Pro Tempore

12 Superior Court of Guam